Some would question your validity on the "Christianity" of these examples.
Two/three popes, an Episcopalian Bishop, a Christian apologist, a Baptist minister, and two published scientists - a Roman Catholic and an Evangelical - whose layman level work includes books on the compatibility of God and evolution.
But, you know, they're not True Scotsmen afterall.
I on the other hand will tell you that evolution is a complete lie.
Go on.
Read "The Origin of Species"
Done. It took me a while though.
and it's views on African Americans and tell me if it would even be allowed in the United States let alone its doctrine be taught in schools and considered a staple and the end all be all truth.
Darwin's ideas about race were reflective of those of the society he was raised in. While they seem incredibly racist now, you could actually characterise his views as somewhat progressive for that period in English history.
However, that is beside the fact.
Darwins views about the human social construct of racism have no relevance on whether or not evolution by natural selection is a valid explanation of biological diversity.
Darwain could have been the worst human alive, but that would in no way invalidate his theory, provided it was supported by the evidence.
As a matter of fact The THEORY of evolution
Do you know what a theory is in science? Do you know how the usage of the word Theory in science, differs from the usage of theory in every-day parlance?
Here's a hint. One of these means an unsupported hypothesis, the other is an explanation of the evidence that is supported by repeated confirmation of the evidence.
is the cornerstone of what's wrong with this nation as a whole and Russia can be used as the utmost example.
Based on this statement, I'm just going to assume you're American. What does Russia have to do with the US though? It's so exciting! Let's read on.
Karl Marx was a devout Christian,
And also a German. Well, a Prussian but close enough.
he went to public school and read Darwin's book.
Really? At public school you say?
That's amazing! He must have also invented a time machine in the process as well.
Marx finished his public schooling in 1835, better than 20 years before Darwin published 'On the Origin of Species'. He finished university by 1941, 18 years before 'Species' was published.
Soon after he denounced Christianity, developed the working theory of Communism and wrote a book.
Marx developed his ideas on socialism, communism and atheism in the late 1830s through to the mid 1840s. He was already publishing socialist works in the mid 1840s and published The Communist Manifesto in 1848.
Marx certainly did read 'Species', but only in about 1860. While it was an influence on Marx, he had already been disassociated with religious beliefs for better than 15 years. His famous 'Religion is the opium of the people' line was written around 1844.
There were plenty of other thinkers and ideas that were VASTLY more influential on Marx - English economist, German philosophers and French social theorists - than Darwin every was. Darwin probably wasn't even the most influential voice in biology on Marx, that was likely Tremaux.
Not only that he wrote a letter to Darwin thanking him saying if not for him it wouldn't be possible and wanted to dedicate his book to Darwin (Darwin's wife told him he'd better stay away from it). Marx also died penniless and watched his kids starve.
I'm not sure that any of what you just wrote is true, but none of it is relevant to the validity of evolution.
Another little footnote on the wonders of survival of the fittest, if Darwin knew so much take a little look into his life. Research his blood relation to his wife and the resulting afflictions of his children and what happened to them, if Darwin truly BELIEVED in evolution he would've known better.
Wait, what? Slow down, you've lost me.
You do know what survival of the fittest actually means when it relates to biology? Here's a hint, stop thinking about individuals, start thinking about populations.
Darwin had ABSOLUTELY no idea of what he was talking about, the people that endorsed him didn't even believe him, they went along with him for civil and political gain.
Darwin published 'Origin of Species', 'Descent of Man', 'Variation of Animals and Plants' and all the others and he possessed no clue of what he was talking about.
Really?
At this point I'm just going to assume you're recycling creationist talking points and haven't actually read any of Darwin's works yourself, apart from quotemines.
As for that crack about his supporters only aligning with him for "civil and political gain", I suggest you look up the institutions that supported Darwin's ideas and the ones that opposed them. Here's a hint, one side is primarily independent naturalists and scientists, the other side is primarily religious, civil and political organisations. If I were seeking short term gains, supporting Darwin in the 1860s wouldn't have been my choice.
The main and ONLY reason that evolution exists is a Biblical, Godly reason. It's for God's purpose and used. It has a reason and is necessary even though it is FALSE.
You're fine believing what you want, just don't expect anyone else to believe you unless you can back it up.
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
